Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;863708Hostility is a strong word, and I don't "hate" Monte Cook, but ever since he wrote this worthless drivel I've paid him no attention whatsoever.

I, on the other hand, pretty much agree with it. I went through a phase in the 1980s where I had very detailed character generation systems (although they did not really require system mastery to create a good character the way 3.x does), and after a few years of dealing with them decided they weren't what I (or most of my players) enjoyed at all.

Quote from: Simlasa;863807As someone who has been reading for most of his life, it all seemed pretty clear to me.

It was clear to me also--but I had to work a bit at it. (I need a new glasses prescription so that wall of text effect was tough.) However, I count inflammatory statements (intentional or not) or a wall-of-text-ish lead up to the point as "unclear", since at least some of your readers will quit reading or have trouble processing it. (Even Nature journals have more paragraphs.)

That's what I assume is happening, since some people read that blog entry and went "duh" or "interesting" while others decided it was "drivel".

Quote from: Tod13;863818It was clear to me also--but I had to work a bit at it. (I need a new glasses prescription so that wall of text effect was tough.) However, I count inflammatory statements (intentional or not) or a wall-of-text-ish lead up to the point as "unclear", since at least some of your readers will quit reading or have trouble processing it. (Even Nature journals have more paragraphs.)

That's what I assume is happening, since some people read that blog entry and went "duh" or "interesting" while others decided it was "drivel".

If people don't read the whole thing, I have some trouble taking their complaints seriously. It is not that long. As readers we do have some responsibility to actually read the text.

To me it reads clearly enough and the initial paragraph provoked my interest when I first read it (making a bold statement then clarifying in the course of a post is a fair technique to use). I don't share the preferences Cook describes but the article articulates them well, and nothing about the preferences or the text suggest any reason to dislike the man.

As for clarity, he enumerated what he likes/wants and plans to do with character creation going forward.

Quote from: Settembrini;863811The best simile I can find is Supertramp. Yes, Monte Cook is the Supertramp of RPGs. To me.

Are you saying that they are calling him a "magical criminal"?

I think the very first time I heard people complaining about Monte Cook was back in 2004. His company at the time, Malhavoc Press, had just released "The Year's Best d20."

This was a book that basically reprinted various d20 rules (e.g. feats, spells, prestige classes, etc.) from various small publishers. If I recall correctly, it deliberately listed which companies had produced which rules right there in the text, and I think it had some commentary from Monte in there too (I never actually owned the book, so I could be wrong about any of this).

The hate came from people who seemed to think that his using "best" was an objective pronouncement made from on high. "Who's Monte Cook to decide what's best?" went the messageboard whiners. That these people lacked the ability to comprehend the implicit understanding that this was Monte's opinion was staggering.

Quote from: Alzrius;863919The hate came from people who seemed to think that his using "best" was an objective pronouncement made from on high. "Who's Monte Cook to decide what's best?" went the messageboard whiners. That these people lacked the ability to comprehend the implicit understanding that this was Monte's opinion was staggering.

This is the plague of internet discourse. Unless you preface or postfix absolutely everything you say with "IMHO" or "YMMV" or some other stupid qualifier, you're instantly accused of having the chutzpah to assert your opinion as fact. It happened yet again just a few minutes ago on this very forum.

Quote from: Alzrius;863919I think the very first time I heard people complaining about Monte Cook was back in 2004. His company at the time, Malhavoc Press, had just released "The Year's Best d20."

This was a book that basically reprinted various d20 rules (e.g. feats, spells, prestige classes, etc.) from various small publishers. If I recall correctly, it deliberately listed which companies had produced which rules right there in the text, and I think it had some commentary from Monte in there too (I never actually owned the book, so I could be wrong about any of this).

The hate came from people who seemed to think that his using "best" was an objective pronouncement made from on high. "Who's Monte Cook to decide what's best?" went the messageboard whiners. That these people lacked the ability to comprehend the implicit understanding that this was Monte's opinion was staggering.

Bingo! We have a winner!

Quote from: aspiringlich;863922This is the plague of internet discourse. Unless you preface or postfix absolutely everything you say with "IMHO" or "YMMV" or some other stupid qualifier, you're instantly accused of having the chutzpah to assert your opinion as fact. It happened yet again just a few minutes ago on this very forum.

Oh, this a thousand times over. I encounter this attitude whenever I express an opinion on my YouTube channel. *My* YouTube channel. And I only have 4400+ followers. Imagine how much worse it would be if I had Cook's audience numbers... There have been times I start a video, "The follow is my subjective opinion..." I hate this attitude so much. I had one guy tell me I should not critique a role-playing game unless I had published my own. Utter idiocy. At least Cook doesn't have *that* problem.

Never mind what I expect part of the issue is with some people.  You know, how "arrogant," "full of himself" and the like are now defined as meaning "disagrees with me on a single key issue, and dares to do so publicly, using first person imperative and forceful language to do so."

The bastards!

Quote from: Nexus;863313I disliked the concession more because it seemed compromise what the game was about. The Thunder Plains was not an accurate representation of the regions native American cultures any more than Goodland is an accurate depiction of the 1950s. Recursions are born from fiction, imagination and belief so widely believed and accepted stereotypes are going to shape them as much, if not more than the "truth". The Thunder Plains and its replacement both fit into the structure of The Strange and illustrate that part of it but no, can't have people being exposed to ideas that even hint at being uncomfortable

*looks down* How the Hell did I get on this soapbox. sorry.

ahahahah i do that to its ok if you feel strongly about something some times you will end up being a touch soap boxish its pretty normal for people

Quote from: Justin Alexander;863363This is the article. The nerd rage was because he didn't assume that everyone reading the article was familiar with 4E and, therefore, explained the "passive perception" terminology before demonstrating how it would be handled in the hypothetical version of 5E that Mearls had introduced the week before. This "obviously" meant he had never heard of it before and was reinventing the wheel.

It's as if someone at Ford in 1918 started a discussion about their new braking system by mentioning that there were four wheels on a standard automobile and then people lost their mind because Ford was trying to claim that they had invented the wheel.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;863766A lot of people think out loud on their blogs. What I see are folks reading way too deeply into one man's reflection of the day. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he hates character creation, maybe he has some more nuanced position and didn't convey it well to his audience, whatever the case, I still don't get the hatred it prompts in people. There is a big difference between reading a blog post and disagreeing with it or feeling like it is a bit confused and "dude's got problems".

Also with a guy like Monte, he isn't writing with narrow sections for he internet in mind. I don't think he is the type of person who really pays much attention to the sections of of RPG audience who have emerged in forums and the like over the years, so you don't find him writing defensively against accidentally using a particular word that sets one group or another off. To me that isn't a clarity issues with his writing. He just isn't interested in some of the distinctions people get upset about online.

yep pretty much i mean blogs are more or less ramblings to some degree
and if you arnt the type to fallow every special snow flake group and keep track of what sets them off you are going to set them off and probly have no idea what you said  

Quote from: Tetsubo;863932Oh, this a thousand times over. I encounter this attitude whenever I express an opinion on my YouTube channel. *My* YouTube channel. And I only have 4400+ followers. Imagine how much worse it would be if I had Cook's audience numbers... There have been times I start a video, "The follow is my subjective opinion..." I hate this attitude so much. I had one guy tell me I should critique a role-playing game unless I had published my own. Utter idiocy. At least Cook doesn't have *that* problem.

and i must be blind because i only just noticed you had a youtube account in your sig cuz you brought it up well you just got another sub me

I don't read allot of blogs and probably only some of the worst examples but for a blog it seemed fairly grounded. He was expressing an opinion and preferences that worked for him and his group not denouncing everything else as the way of the Devil.

.

Quote from: Ravenswing;864064Never mind what I expect part of the issue is with some people.  You know, how "arrogant," "full of himself" and the like are now defined as meaning "disagrees with me on a single key issue, and dares to do so publicly, using first person imperative and forceful language to do so."

The bastards!

That made me laugh- well done!

Quote from: aspiringlich;863922This is the plague of internet discourse. Unless you preface or postfix absolutely everything you say with "IMHO" or "YMMV" or some other stupid qualifier, you're instantly accused of having the chutzpah to assert your opinion as fact. It happened yet again just a few minutes ago on this very forum.

That's just like your opinion, man.